This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Originally Posted by tererun

No, they could not show a single instance of harm when asked to do so during his sentencing. They had absolutely no evidence any person was harmed or put in danger due to the revalations, and it has been years, and I am sure they have been looking for something to blame him for. You are completely wrong. You are however correct in that I do lack the understanding that would lead me to a wrong conclusion like yours. I am not bothered by being right and not understanding your vindictive hatred of manning.

You are showing a complete lack of understanding all around. You are confusing "aiding the enemy" with endangering lives. You also have no understanding of classified material and the reason these laws exist at all. You should just back away from this discussion, you look foolish.

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Originally Posted by tererun

No, they could not show a single instance of harm when asked to do so during his sentencing. They had absolutely no evidence any person was harmed or put in danger due to the revalations, and it has been years, and I am sure they have been looking for something to blame him for. You are completely wrong. You are however correct in that I do lack the understanding that would lead me to a wrong conclusion like yours. I am not bothered by being right and not understanding your vindictive hatred of manning.

They didn't present it because they didn't feel it was needed during the hearing/would have been contentious, because everyone has a different definition of 'harm'.

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
-GK Chesterton

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Originally Posted by mac

You are showing a complete lack of understanding all around. You are confusing "aiding the enemy" with endangering lives. You also have no understanding of classified material and the reason these laws exist at all. You should just back away from this discussion, you look foolish.

oh, you want to use something vague and unqualified. I endangered some lives today when I drove down to the store. I might have had an accident and killed people, so i guess i deserve 35 years in prison for existing like everyone else. For all that supposed danger which you cannot quantify you are admitting there is zero actual damage. It is dangerous for a magician to eat fire, that does not mean they hurt themselves every time they do it.

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Originally Posted by tererun

oh, you want to use something vague and unqualified. I endangered some lives today when I drove down to the store. I might have had an accident and killed people, so i guess i deserve 35 years in prison for existing like everyone else. For all that supposed danger which you cannot quantify you are admitting there is zero actual damage. It is dangerous for a magician to eat fire, that does not mean they hurt themselves every time they do it.

Oh, there was absolutely damage. That goes without question.

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
-GK Chesterton

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Originally Posted by tererun

oh, you want to use something vague and unqualified. I endangered some lives today when I drove down to the store. I might have had an accident and killed people, so i guess i deserve 35 years in prison for existing like everyone else. For all that supposed danger which you cannot quantify you are admitting there is zero actual damage. It is dangerous for a magician to eat fire, that does not mean they hurt themselves every time they do it.

No, it's not vague and unqualified. It's very real, and you would have to understand why things are classified to begin with to understand it. You certainly don't.

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder

They didn't present it because they didn't feel it was needed during the hearing/would have been contentious, because everyone has a different definition of 'harm'.

That is not true, they did not present it during his sentencing when asked because they had none. They were asked, and there is a proper procedural time to bring up the consequences of the crime when the judge is considering sentencing and they could not provide one instance where mannings leaks had caused any quantifiable damage. They could not show one death attributed to him. they could not show any money loss attributed to him. They could not show any damage at all.

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder

Oh, there was absolutely damage. That goes without question.

then why was there no presentation of any of that at his sentencing? yes, i understand they decided not to present it at trial, but at sentencing there is a point where it is part of process to bring up the effects of the criome committed when evaluating punishment.

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Originally Posted by mac

No, it's not vague and unqualified. It's very real, and you would have to understand why things are classified to begin with to understand it. You certainly don't.

No, it is vague and unqualified. A qualified and specific thing wiould been for them to be able to say because of him the terrorists made so and so attack, or did some specific thing. What you are saying is there was some danger and you do not really know where it is or what it does but it is out there.

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Originally Posted by tererun

That is not true, they did not present it during his sentencing when asked because they had none.They were asked, and there is a proper procedural time to bring up the consequences of the crime when the judge is considering sentencing and they could not provide one instance where mannings leaks had caused any quantifiable damage. They could not show one death attributed to him. they could not show any money loss attributed to him. They could not show any damage at all.

They didn't show any. There's a difference.

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
-GK Chesterton

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

yes, i understand they decided not to present it at trial, but at sentencing there is a point where it is part of process to bring up the effects of the criome committed when evaluating punishment.

And they didn't want to bring further controversy to the issue. They didn't want any doubt so they focused on that which is quantifiable.

If you think partner nations were happy with diplomatic cables being leaked (sometimes regarding things they shared with the US in confidence), you're crazy. They were unhappy. A nation becoming unhappy with another is damaging for the nation that had the leak.

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
-GK Chesterton